Somebody need a good donkey kicking!!!
When the smoking ban in cars with children was first mooted I had a problem with it; not because I thought that smoking in cars with children was a good thing, I certainly don’t, but because it is the first step on the proverbial slippery slope of allowing the state to control our otherwise perfectly legal activities within our own private space.
Of course we have been suffering the effects of the draconian smoking ban in enclosed public spaces for years. The bans are, apparently, popular with the public and there are high levels of compliance even though official enforcement is virtually invisible. Smokers have largely adapted to these bans and the more smoke friendly establishments have found creative ways in which to keep their smoking clientele relatively comfortable. However there would have been no need to do so had the bans been implemented in a fair fashion, for example…
View original post 401 more words
I wanted to post this, but only have this place to do it!
written at http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html in March 2008
The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That’s to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there’s less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you’re entering territory he may not have explored.
The result is there’s a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn’t mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it’s not anger that’s driving the increase in disagreement, there’s a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it’s easy to say things you’d never say face to face.
If we’re all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here’s an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:
For the rest of the article see the link near the top.
Louise Ross is the manager for Leicester’s Stop Smoking Service, the first stop smoking service in the UK to become ‘e-cig friendly’. —– “Our data collection shows that when people, of their own choosing, use ecigs, either with or without NRT supplied by us, they do up to 20% better in terms of stopping smoking.”
Firstly, my questions do not have anything to do with “what legislation do we want?” or “what do we want vaping to look like in 5 years?”, although they are very valid questions, it is not what this is about. I wanted to know what effect I want our movement to have on society, namely Public Health and Tobacco Control, and it’s attitude towards smokers.Whether you like it or not, or even realise it, what we are trying to do has far wider implications than just whether or not we can vape in the pub. It is more than whether we are taxed for our habit or whether teens are taking up e-cigs in huge numbers (one day I WILL get round to writing my thoughts on teens and e-cigs!).
Put all those things aside for a second and think of it like this – if we get PH and TC to acknowledge e-cigs and vaping, what does this mean?
Am I being overly optimistic? Possibly. But as we watch bans and hysteria across the planet, in the UK we are doing alright! Glantz called us an experiment, and it is one of the few things he has been right about.
So here is the thing, the trouble with bubbles is that, eventually, they burst. It is my sincere hope that it is not a pin, but an e-cig that bursts this one. What a wonderful side effect to come from this battle we are fighting.